Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook React.js License

elcaminolegal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 203 posts

Re: Facebook React.js License

#61

Post by thecatspaw »

Noseshine wrote: post #48

So I checked StackExchange's law site and found this question - thus far unanswered, but those would be my questions exactly: http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-consequ... It comes down to two questions (quoted from the linked question) - note that those are questions , not assertions: 1) > ... if we use any of Facebook's open source projects Facebook can violate *our patents* (of any > kind) pretty…

> 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: >… >(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple; _provided that Apple did not first commence an action for patent infringement against You in that instance._

am I misunderstanding the last part?

Re: Facebook React.js License

#62

Post by lucb1e »

The way I read it, it's not evil.

It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese.

Facebook clearly was aware of this "shortcoming" and being a big player, they might have wanted to be nice and say "we won't sue you for patent infringement if it turns out we have a patent on something React does". Then the managers went "but what if they sue us? Patents are not only for offense but also our defense, we would weaken our defense." And so the clause of "except if you sue us first" came into being.

And now this fuss about the patent part making it not an open source license? Oh come on.

I really don't like Facebook as a company, but this bickering is silly.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#63

Post by the_duke »

webwalker wrote: post #36
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is not necessarily a paragon of open source, but many of their open source projects use unadulterated OS licenses. Typescript is Apache 2: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/blob/master/LICENSE.... Visual Studio Code is MIT: https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

You will notice that most new projects all use MIT. Apache 2 hasn't been used for anything new in the last year+.

Have some examples?

The MIT license is problematic with software patents.

I see some projects moving to Apache2 for that reason (one prominent example here is Rust. They moved to an MIT/Apache2 dual licensing model).

Re: Facebook React.js License

#64

Post by the_duke »

While we are on the subject:

I constantly find the need to read up on licensing. Usually with various blog posts or online information, which never gives me the feeling that I fully understood the legal implications or the context.

Can anyone recommend a book covering software licenses in depth? (ideally not only US centric)

Re: Facebook React.js License

#65

Post by baldfat »

petilon wrote: post #37
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is not necessarily a paragon of open source, but many of their open source projects use unadulterated OS licenses. Typescript is Apache 2: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/blob/master/LICENSE.... Visual Studio Code is MIT: https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Apple and Facebook have "strong" patent retaliation clauses while Microsoft has a "weak" patent retaliation clause. More on strong vs weak retaliation clauses here: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj9.htm Can't believe Microsoft is the good guy here.

Can the unadulterated hate on Microsoft stop ESPECIALLY when you are using an Apple product.

Microsoft has always had "good guys/gals" at the company. They have been in action more the good guys then anything else minus Steve Balmer's anti-Linux bias over the years.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#66

Post by dsp1234 »

thecatspaw wrote: post #61
Noseshine wrote: post #48

So I checked StackExchange's law site and found this question - thus far unanswered, but those would be my questions exactly: http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-consequ... It comes down to two questions (quoted from the linked question) - note that those are questions , not assertions: 1) > ... if we use any of Facebook's open source projects Facebook can violate *our patents* (of any > kind) pretty…

> 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: >… >(c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple; _provided that Apple did not first commence an action for patent infringement against You in that instance._ am I misunderstanding the last part?

In the above scenario, Apple is infringing the rights of another company, who uses Apple's open source code. That company is then in a hard place. They have to allow the infringement by Apple, or stop using the open source software.

Since Apple is the infringer in this scenario, they would not be inclined to 'first commence and action for patent infringement against You'

Re: Facebook React.js License

#67

Post by Alex3917 »

lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

Also, let's say hypothetically that Facebook does sue you for the patents covered by React. When to comes time to establish damages, the fact that Facebook is currently giving away the licenses for free can be used to argue in court that their monetary value is zero. So even if you get hit with treble damages for willful infringement, the actual impact might not be as severe as one might otherwise suspect. (IANAL, don't try this at home, etc.)

Re: Facebook React.js License

#68

Post by amelius »

icebraining wrote: post #60
amelius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is such a clause actually enforceable? Has this been tested in a court of law? Just curious.

Well, the clause isn't "you can't sue", it's "you have to stop using React if you sue".

But what if you don't stop using it?

Re: Facebook React.js License

#70

Post by ronjouch »

lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

> It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable.

Could you (or anyone confident in their legalese) elaborate on:

* Does the Apache2 license indeed solve this? (I'm asking because I read about it in the LLVM/Clang license change proposal [1])

* Why isn't the less-popular-but-still-well-established Apache2 license more widely used, then? To counter what you are saying about simplicity, don't you think patents are a common concern that should be covered by default in a license, even at some complexity cost?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12531887

EDIT: precisions, wording.

Post reply on HN